Playing one-pocket yesterday, my opponent took a shot using the bridge. He made a ball in my pocket, then dropped the bridge moving 2 other balls.
Moving 2 balls is a foul, so we know he has to spot a ball. The question is whether or not the ball he made in my pocket also gets spotted.
The kinda-sorta consensus in the room was that no ball stays down on a foul, so we ended up spotting that ball as well.
The argument against is that this rule could be abused. Let's say there is a case where you can't scratch behind your opponent's ball, but need to, you could make his ball and then "accidentally on purpose" move two other balls on the table to force it back up.
It seems to me that one option would be that if you make a ball in your opponents pocket and foul (as opposed to scratch), then he gets to keep that ball. This would apply for the technical foul mentioned above and double hitting the cue ball.
So, ethical question aside, what *should* the ruling be? Do the current rules address this scenario?
Moving 2 balls is a foul, so we know he has to spot a ball. The question is whether or not the ball he made in my pocket also gets spotted.
The kinda-sorta consensus in the room was that no ball stays down on a foul, so we ended up spotting that ball as well.
The argument against is that this rule could be abused. Let's say there is a case where you can't scratch behind your opponent's ball, but need to, you could make his ball and then "accidentally on purpose" move two other balls on the table to force it back up.
It seems to me that one option would be that if you make a ball in your opponents pocket and foul (as opposed to scratch), then he gets to keep that ball. This would apply for the technical foul mentioned above and double hitting the cue ball.
So, ethical question aside, what *should* the ruling be? Do the current rules address this scenario?